Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “law” insert “, individuals engaged in the recruitment process for the armed forces (as defined by section (Use of the Commissioner)),”

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be very pleased to hear that I intend neither to speak for very long nor to divide the House on my amendment. However, I will press the Government for some clarity about a group of people whose interests are extremely important: those going through the recruitment process to become members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. The amendment therefore seeks to expand very slightly the scope of the Armed Forces commissioner to include not people who wander into an Army recruitment centre and say, “I am interested in joining”, but people who have submitted applications and might be going through the recruitment process.

My understanding, from my honourable friend in the other place, Helen Maguire, is that it is still possible that people going through the recruitment process might be required to stay overnight. In those circumstances, there may be times when people feel that they are subject to abuse, bullying or the sorts of issues that they might need to complain about. On the face of it, it would appear to be appropriate that such people would come under the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner.

If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, would he be able to explain to the House what recourse people going through the recruitment process might have? If it is not through the commissioner, are there other ways for people to raise concerns? If they can do so, is it made clear to people how they can put in complaints? A frequent concern is that individuals do not necessarily know how to make representations. That is obviously a matter for people going through the recruitment process, as well as a wider issue that members of the Armed Forces face, and we may well come back to it when we discuss other amendments. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to which Amendment 1 is linked; I will speak only extremely briefly because she has made the case very well.

I will link this amendment to my Amendment 8, which we will get to later. As the Minister well knows, it relates to my concern about 16 and 17 year-olds—or even 15 year-olds—being recruited into the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness spoke about people in residential situations, but if a 15, 16 or 17 year-old, who has decided that their whole future is in the military, finds that the assessment process operates in a way that is—we would hope that this would not happen, but we need to consider the possibility—abusive or inappropriate in some way, it is important that that person has protection.

I am particularly thinking of—although not solely—those 15, 16 or 17 year-olds who are vulnerable people, and who pin their whole future life on what happens to them in those few days or during a specific test. It is really important that they have the protection that we all want the Armed Forces commissioner to be able to provide to members of the military. I believe that these prospective members of the military should fall within—an often-used phrase—the military family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

They certainly are, but I hope that there is some clarification from what I said to the noble Lord. No doubt that conversation will continue.

More generally, on the point that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made on recruitment, the Government have been very clear about trying to improve the recruitment and retention process, and various changes have been made. We honoured all the Armed Forces pay review board recommendations. We have made some changes to childcare arrangements to try to improve those, and some of the recruitment processes have been changed—to have a new direct entry route into cyber, for example. There is the change of contract as well. We are trying to take on board some of the criticisms and challenges there have been to address the more general point about recruitment, but also retention. Let us see where the figures get to over the next period, because we all want to see recruitment into our Armed Forces—and, indeed, retention—improve.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her Amendments 1 and 6—I know that she has the support of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for Amendment 6. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s genuine and well-founded concerns about the experience of those applying to join the military. During Committee, we discussed the importance of a recruitment process that is fit for purpose, as I outlined to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and easy to navigate—a process that will enable as many people as possible to join their preferred service in a timely fashion and provide sufficient protections for those going through it. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, noted the number of candidates. The figure I have is that up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope would obviously vastly increase the workload of the commissioner. I note the noble Baroness’s revised amendments, which attempt to narrow the numbers by defining at what point in the process an applicant would come under the commissioner’s scope. When we discussed this, the noble Baroness made it clear, as she has in the Chamber today, that she wanted to understand how the process works and what people can do if they are unhappy with how they are treated. I shall now make some remarks that I hope address some of her concerns.

The Navy, Army and RAF have different requirements and processes for recruitment. These differ depending on whether the candidate is joining as an enlisted person or as an officer. Each service has a clear complaints process for candidates. All complaints are dealt with by a qualified officer, with any medical complaints being sent to trained medical staff. To further reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, there are protections in place to ensure the welfare of candidates completing Armed Forces selection or assessment activities on defence establishments. The Armed Forces have in place appropriate safeguarding measures which are regularly reviewed and updated as appropriate in support of these activities. These measures cover, but are not limited to, staff selection, training, background checks, candidate accommodation—a point raised by the noble Baroness and by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—and the conduct of activities.

I absolutely agree that we must look after those going through the application process. However, these processes are already in place and the commissioner would not be the right avenue to replace them. I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Baroness now has the necessary reassurance. Important as they are, I ask her not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. As I said in my opening remarks, Amendment 1 was, in many ways, intended as a probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for pointing out the slightly sloppy redrafting of the amendment since Committee and that the last line should not have been there. I am happy at this stage to withdraw Amendment 1. Amendment 6 is consequential, so I shall not be moving it.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 12 and respond to the Government’s amendments.

One of the issues that we raised in Committee was precisely the need for a definition of “family member” and, in particular, a concern that kinship care should be taken into consideration. Between Second Reading and Committee, we had a government proposal for the sort of definition of “family” that His Majesty’s Government might bring forward.

On another of my amendments in Committee, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out that the legislation was already far too voluminous and asked whether we could please rein back a bit. I am happy to be corrected about the appropriateness of having long descriptions in the Bill. I think the suggestion of moving to the affirmative procedure for the definition of “family” in secondary legislation is acceptable.

I have one question for the Minister, but it might also be a wider one for His Majesty’s Government. We have talked about the definition, and the fact that the Government put forward some proposed wording in Committee suggests that there is a need for such a definition. However, if we already have 400 pages of legislation on the Armed Forces, do we not already have some definitions of what a family is? Do we actually need to go through the Armed Forces code—not on the Floor of the House today—to make sure that everything hangs together and we have one agreed definition that we might look at when we are at the level of secondary legislation?

For the moment, I am happy to say that, at the appropriate point, I will not be testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to support the amendments laid by my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Minto, and congratulate them on their principled work on matters defence and, in particular, on this Bill. I wholeheartedly wish to commend all noble Lords who have engaged with this legislation and the constructive contributions from across the House. I also declare an interest as a veteran.

I add my support for Amendments 3 and 5, as at the forefront of all our minds is supporting those men and women who serve, and their families who, in turn, support them. It is an honour and often a sacrifice to wear the uniform, and it is precisely because service personnel do serve for us and our freedoms that we enjoy these deeply cherished and fought-for freedoms. The very least we can do is strengthen protections around their welfare and well-being, formally safeguarding their voices and those of their nearest and dearest under whistleblowing regulations, so that they are always heard and their welfare is never taken for granted.

The whistleblowing provisions and clarifications sought by several contributors to this debate—those provisions inherent in these amendments—are vital to providing further support and protection to our service personnel and their families. As my noble friend mentioned, this Bill is stronger because of cross-party collaboration and the shared respect that we all have for those who serve. I put on record my support for these amendments. I hope they become part of this Bill and sincerely commend the work done by all involved in bringing the Bill before Parliament.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for such an interesting and illuminating debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for answering some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on the government Benches on what difference a whistleblowing function would have compared with other complaints that might be brought to the Armed Forces commissioner.

We have heard from across the House, including from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Wrottesley, on the importance of the whistleblowing function that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has proposed putting in the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assiduous attention in talking to those of us who have been involved at various stages of this Bill and for seeking to find ways of responding to the amendments that we have been bringing forward. I look forward to hearing what he is able to say to the House today. In particular, the anonymity aspect is important. Unless the Minister is able to bring something forward that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, feels able to support, these Benches will be supporting Amendments 3 and 5.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and for the ongoing discussions we have had in Committee, outside of it and now back here on Report.

Let us be clear about this: there is no difference in our policy objectives. Nobody wants to read about the things the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, outlined, or about the sexism and other behaviours that we see in the Armed Forces. There is no difference between any of us on that. There is nobody here who supports that. We all want that to be exposed and we all want people to feel able to come forward, through the complaints procedure or through the new body we are setting up.

People say that we still see these things happening today, and of course that is true. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that, when the First Sea Lord went to a recent Defence Select Committee, he spoke about the number of Navy personnel who had been dismissed from the service using the legislation that the previous Government brought in. They quite commendably and rightly brought that in to deal with some of the appalling and unacceptable behaviour.

Noble Lords asked whether that legislation goes far enough and whether more needs to be done. Of course more needs to be done, which is why we have an Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. We understand that the legislation is still not sufficient and that more needs to be done. Therefore, we are bringing forward this Bill.

I understand perfectly that the intention behind the amendments is for people to feel able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions from their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with that—who is going to disagree with that? There is nobody who would disagree with that. We all want people to trust the process and the commissioner, and feel confident that their issue will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences from coming forward.

What is proposed in the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward, quite commendably, and in the arguments that have been made, is—as my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry have said in their remarks—available to those who come forward now. As the Bill is currently drafted, the various policy intentions are being met. Let me go through some of the technical reasons again, because they are important.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must— (a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am aware that debate is taking a little longer and that we have more groups of amendments that are single amendments than many people had hoped. I therefore propose to be incredibly brief. This amendment raises the issue of the Armed Forces covenant and to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner would be subject to that covenant.

It might sound axiomatic—to use the phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, used in Committee— that the Government are bound by the Armed Forces covenant but, technically, the Government are not bound by it. The covenant relates to businesses and the providers of housing and of the health service, but it does not apply to the Government per se. This amendment seeks to ask to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner will be required to look at the Armed Forces covenant. It may be that the Minister says that that is left entirely to legislation on the Armed Forces covenant, but I think it would be helpful to understand whether the commissioner would or could be bound by the legislation.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we visited the issue of the Armed Forces covenant during our deliberations in Committee. During that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, raised the importance of the covenant and how vital it is that the commissioner be fully able to investigate covenant issues relating to the welfare of service personnel and their families. I was grateful, as I think were all noble Lords present, for the Minister’s response. It was welcome to receive clarification that the commissioner will be able to investigate such matters.

As I noted in Committee, the duty to have regard to the principles of the covenant was established in statute by the Armed Forces Act 2021. That was a significant step forward and we have seen much progress since then. I also note the Government’s intention to embed the covenant fully into law, which is indeed a welcome step. Again, I think it is already a given that the commissioner should have due regard to the covenant, and the comments from the Minister have given me the certainty that they will indeed do so.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for the comments that he has made. I also thank the noble Baroness for bringing the important topic of the Armed Forces covenant to our attention and for the valuable engagement that we have had ahead of this debate.

As we discussed in Committee, and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, this amendment would place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. I will say again for the record that this Government are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. The covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve; those who have served in the past; and their families, including the bereaved. Our election manifesto included a commitment to place it fully into law, which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, referenced, and which we will do.

However, as noble Lords are aware, and I will stress again, the covenant applies to both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. The Government believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the welfare matters affecting our serving community, and that is where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make a real impact. As I have stated before, it will of course be perfectly proper that the commissioner considers covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families—I would imagine that these issues will be within the remit of the commissioner to investigate.

With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and others that, as the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to specify this in the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am thankful to the noble Lords for responding to this small amendment. Of course, it may be possible that the whistleblower will be able to bring matters that could link to the Armed Forces covenant, if the amendment that has just been agreed is kept in the other place. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I welcome the amendment, in the sense that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that those in the Armed Forces who are aged under 18 are protected, which I think we would all wish. I disagree with her about recruiting those aged under 18, because I suggest that the Army Foundation College in Harrogate does a fantastic job of helping and developing young people from some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. Having taken a passing-out parade there as a Minister, I have to say that it is quite emotional to see the change that some of those individuals have gone through in the time they were at Harrogate.

In saying that, the noble Baroness is correct that there have been incidents at Harrogate that should not have happened, and it is important that the commissioner is able to look at them, particularly concentrating on under-18s. I understand that Ofsted already inspects Harrogate, but I accept that is only one part of what the noble Baroness is trying to get at with this amendment.

It is important to have this debate, because whoever becomes the commissioner should look at this. When they look at particular cases, or even hold a thematic inquiry into under-18s provision, then, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says in her amendment, drawing on expertise from the Children’s Commission and others will be important. As she quite rightly says, the Armed Forces commissioner, no matter how good he or she is, will not have the specialist knowledge that the Children’s Commission and others do. So I welcome the debate: if we are to attract people to our Armed Forces, it is going to be very important that the experience they have is of the utmost quality and does not lead to some of the issues that have, sadly, arisen at Harrogate.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this amendment. As she pointed out, we had an amendment in Committee that listed a whole set of different groups to which we suggested the Armed Forces commissioner should pay particular attention. It was not intended to be something that would ever be brought to a vote. In the light of the Atherton report and the Etherton report, it is important for the commissioner to think about groups that have faced particular problems within His Majesty’s Armed Forces, so exploring who the commissioner should take into consideration and where there might be a need for particular inquiries or reports seemed to be worth discussing.

Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that recruiting under-18s is something that we accept, it is important to bear in mind that people aged under 18 are still technically children. It is important that the commissioner, in looking at their welfare, looks to other bodies that deal with that. In this regard, mentioning family members is also important, because if we are talking about recruitment, as the noble Lord has just done, it is not simply whether a 16 or 17 year-old wants to sign up but whether their parents feel comfortable in that as well. This is an important issue for us to discuss, but obviously not to push to a vote on this occasion.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises an important point. The welfare of service personnel who are aged under 18 is a matter that all noble Lords wish to guarantee. I personally have fond memories of training junior leaders. They were, despite their age, some of the keenest, most determined and, at times, most fearless individuals, certainly in relation to trying out new skills, that I had the honour of serving with.

I think it right, therefore, that the Government give serious consideration to the treatment of young people recruited into the Armed Forces. They are part of the future of our Armed Forces, and it is in all our interests to provide an environment that allows them both to thrive and to flourish. When we face recruitment and retention issues, as has been discussed already, we cannot have a situation in which young people are deterred from joining up or encouraged to leave prematurely. I would be grateful if the Minister would update the House on efforts His Majesty’s Government are taking to deal with the concerns of young people serving in our Armed Forces.

The amendment from the noble Baroness also mentions the children of service personnel. They are impacted in a unique way by their parents’ service, and this can easily get forgotten or overlooked. They often have to move home when the military requires their family to relocate, which can be to different and disparate parts of the country, or indeed overseas. Moving so frequently is by no means an easy thing to ask of anyone, let alone a child. Leaving friends behind, losing a sense of normality and becoming accustomed to an entirely new way of living would be challenging for even the most adventurous of us. I mentioned in Committee that 62% of those who left the Armed Forces reported family concerns as one of their core reasons for leaving. We must address this issue head-on if we are to deal with the crisis of retention.

In direct response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, which mentions the Children’s Commissioner, I say that there must be clear delineation of responsibility for the welfare of service personnel. The Armed Forces commissioner must be responsible for investigations regarding general service welfare matters from service personnel, regardless of age. The Children’s Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner are two very distinct roles, and for good reasons. To conflate the two could risk confusion over responsibility. If a person under 18 has an issue regarding their welfare, as part of their military service, they should go to the Armed Forces commissioner only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. When my noble friend Lord Beamish moved his amendment in Committee, I strongly supported it—and I support it again today. I am sure that Machiavelli would be pleased to know that his name still comes up in discussions centuries after his death.

When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill at Second Reading, he made the very good point that its purpose was to provide statutory authority for the new Armed Forces commissioner—it is a new role that we have not had before. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to convey the same sense of authority, this time on behalf of Parliament, because she or he will have been confirmed by the relevant committee—or committees —of either House.

My second point has nothing to do with this Bill. What my noble friend is suggesting is a very good point of principle on all such appointments. In the wider context of the relations between the Executive and the legislature, an amendment such as this strongly seeks to improve the authority of Parliament—not necessarily against the Executive, but, nevertheless, it would improve the importance and role of Parliament. Otherwise, what is the point of our being here if Parliament does not play a role?

I strongly support the amendment. It will not be pressed to a vote, and I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say in reply, but I hope that he will convey an element of agreement with my noble friend Lord Beamish’s argument.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, seek to do what amendments that I tabled in Committee also sought to do, albeit rather less elegantly. My amendment on having parliamentary scrutiny for the Armed Forces commissioner was the source of considerable concern to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who said that it was far too detailed to put in the Bill. Therefore, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has decided to bring back this amendment, because it is important that we have a parliamentary role, and he has phrased that elegantly both in the formulation of his amendment and in what he has just said.

If we want to have an independent Armed Forces commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State, it would be appropriate that the way of appointing that person stands up to scrutiny—and both Houses of Parliament playing a role would be an effective way of doing that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that and what role His Majesty’s Government feel able to grant to Parliament in this regard.

On Amendment 14, the change of those minor words—from “may” to “must”—suggests something rather important. As with so much legislation, if you have not read the Bill, the change from “may” to “must” makes very little sense. But this is about adequate resourcing of the Armed Forces commissioner. It was pointed out earlier in today’s debate that we are already looking at considerably increasing the funding for the Armed Forces commissioner, compared with the current ombudsperson. If work needs to be done, it is vital that the role of the Armed Forces commissioner be adequately resourced, because if not, and the Armed Forces commissioner is unable fully to fulfil the job given to them, what message does that send to the Armed Forces and their families? If cases are brought and the Armed Forces commissioner does not have time to deal with the complaints or to undertake the reports needed, that will undermine the commissioner’s prestige and credibility.

If “may” cannot be converted to “must”, can the Minister explain to the House how funding will be provided and give us some guarantees that, in the longer term, the Armed Forces commissioner will be adequately resourced? As his noble friend Lord Beamish said, we might be happy that this Government will give adequate resources, but we are legislating not just for this Government but for future ones as well.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for his Amendment 13, which addresses the highly significant matter of the appointment process and the independence of the commissioner.

My noble friend Lord Courtown, in winding for the Official Opposition at Second Reading, raised the differences between the proposed commissioner and the German armed forces commissioner, as we have heard today. One of the main differences is the method of appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, rightly raised. The German commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, with nominations coming from the different party groups. That role establishes a significant role for the German Parliament in the appointment process.

The commissioner here shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and not elected by Parliament. The Government have indicated that their successful candidate will appear, I believe, before the Defence Select Committee in the other place. I have two questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the person they appoint remains entirely independent? Secondly, would the Minister be amenable to the commissioner also undergoing pre-appointment scrutiny before the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House too?

On Amendment 14, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on financing what we all agree is a most positive initiative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 15 makes a provision that is consequential on Clause 3. As your Lordships are aware following our discussions in Committee, Clause 3 amends Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006, to specify that a specified “person” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than for that function having to be carried out by a specified “officer”. An admissibility decision is an administrative decision on whether to accept or exclude a complaint from the service complaints system. The future Armed Forces commissioner will retain the power to review admissibility decisions and make a final decision about whether the complaint should be accepted into the system.

To offer some reassurance that what we are discussing is simply an administrative decision which does not require the dedicated attention of an officer, I outline the factors considered part of these decisions: whether the complaint has been made within the prescribed time limits; whether the complainant is currently serving, which includes both regular and reserve personnel; whether the complaint is a duplicate or repeat complaint; and whether the subject matter of the complaint relates to a service matter or not. There are some limited subject matter exclusions relating, for example, to matters already subject to legal proceedings or operational decisions in combat. We do not consider that this administrative decision requires military expertise—hence the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill, which allows a suitably qualified “person”, rather than an “officer”, to make that decision.

The Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations 2015 set out in more detail what a specified “person” would be for these purposes, as they currently do for a specified “officer”. The regulations will be brought forward in due course and will continue to preclude the specified “person” from being anyone who is the subject of, or in any way implicated in, the statement of complaints. Thus, the effect of Clause 3 is to allow certain civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the Armed Forces is admissible in the service complaints system.

However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate “officer” in the single services. Therefore, we also need the language in Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act to be updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is not any inconsistency in the legislation. This was an oversight in our initial drafting and is what my amendment to Schedule 2 seeks to address.

This amendment would ensure that, in cases where the Armed Forces commissioner may refer complaints into the service complaints system, the references in the legislation are consistent with the fact that civilians will now be able to make admissibility decisions by virtue of Clause 3 of the Bill. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, noting that this is a consequential amendment, I simply have one question relating to what the Minister has just said. He said that there was an issue about duplicate or repeat complaints. If there were duplicate complaints—an equivalent complaint from two different people—would that not be admissible, or have I misunderstood what he said?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s consequential Amendment 15. In Committee, the Government brought forward this amendment, claiming that it was minor and technical. At the time, I argued that it was neither minor nor technical. It sought to introduce a substantive change to the service complaints process, and I asked the Minister for clarification, which he and his officials have helpfully provided.

The effect of these changes would mean that the current process—whereby the decision as to whether a service complaint is admissible is made by an officer—could now be made by a civilian, and the Armed Forces commissioner would be able to refer a complaint to a relevant person, as opposed to a relevant officer. Permitting a civilian to undertake these roles, even if an officer could undertake them as well, means that the decisions will, to some extent, now be taken out of the chain of command. The Explanatory Notes explicitly mention that these roles would be undertaken by a civilian, and the Minister confirmed such in Committee. The Government intend for these two roles in the complaints process to be undertaken by civilians as well as by officers, if that is necessary.

In Committee, I expressed concern about this approach, but, after meetings with the Minister—for which I thank him—I am now reassured that the decisions regarding admissibility of service complaints and the referral of complaints is much more of an administrative task than I had understood, as enlarged upon by the Minister earlier in his remarks. I accept that that is not necessarily an efficient use of an officer’s time. Given this clarification, my concerns have been assuaged, my opposition has dissipated and I am content with the position.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Certainly, the shipbuilding strategy is part of the industrial strategy going forward, but my noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of shipbuilding to our country and to growth. I will continue to say at this Dispatch Box that the manufacturing industry of this country needs to be rebuilt, and part of that rebuilding has to be ship- building. We look not only to the Ministry of Defence but to departments across government to do as much as they can to ensure that British ships are built in British yards. That is an important principle that they should adhere to if they possibly can.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, we are awaiting the strategic defence review and, I believe, a defence industrial strategy. Will national shipbuilding be part of that and if so, when can we expect those documents and some real progress?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will see those documents in due course. Of course shipbuilding is going to be a part of future defence growth strategies. These are really important points, and I say again—because we are going to have to reiterate this—that this Government, the next Government and the Government after that are going to have to rebuild the ability of this country to build ships in shipyards in different parts of the country. That cannot be changed overnight: those shipyards will have to be rebuilt, and the apprentices trained. That is fundamental, and fundamental too to our national security going forward is sovereign capability; that is everything.

Future Defence Capability

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, the US-UK relationship is absolutely fundamental to the future security of Europe and across the globe, and we look to maintain it. As far as Europe is concerned, we are looking to reset the EU-UK relationship in terms of defence and security, and work is ongoing. Specifically with respect to industry, of course we are looking for greater collaboration and co-operation across Europe with respect to a European defence industrial strategy, and those negotiations continue. In many respects, both at European and bilateral levels, we are seeing increased co-operation, and that is essential for our European security and to demonstrate to the Americans that Europe is taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the special transatlantic relationship is laudable, but if from the other side of the Atlantic the relationship is not seen as so important, what are His Majesty’s Government proposing to do to ensure that we in the United Kingdom have the military and security capabilities that we need? The Vice-President and others in the United States do not seem to be taking the UK very seriously at the moment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will deal with that in two parts. First, we are increasing UK defence spending, as many other countries across Europe are doing, recognising the increased threats but also the need for us all to demonstrate to the Americans that we are doing what we should with respect to our various responsibilities, both in Europe and beyond. Secondly, whatever the noise around the UK and the US, and what the US President and those associated with him are or are not saying, I cannot stress enough how important it is that the US and UK stand together, work together and tackle common challenges together. There may be a lot of noise, but let the noise from this Chamber be that we see the US-UK relationship as absolutely fundamental, and we will do all that we can to maintain it.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. Much of what I would have liked to say has already been said, but the importance that is attached both to reserves and to the contribution they make to the regular forces will, as we go forward, grow more and more. It may well appear in the defence review as one of those key steps that are being taken. If it is, and even if it is not, I still believe that the recognition of the work of the Reserve Forces, right in the middle of the regular forces, needs to be recognised in this particular way. It would be invidious to leave the Reserve Forces outside, as it were, the responsibility of the commissioner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments from these Benches. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, felt inspired to stand up and speak on the first day in Committee and that he has now brought forward these two amendments.

On reading the Bill, my assumption was that it included regulars and reservists, but the very fact that these questions are being asked means that it would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify the intention of His Majesty’s Government and, perhaps, think about some minor amendments to the wording of the Bill for clarity.

Some of the amendments we brought forward last week, for example about funding, might look rather different depending on whether we are looking at a commissioner whose remit is, in essence, to deal with regulars or one who deals with reservists, because the sheer numbers are different and some of the concerns might be different. If we are looking at funding the commissioner, and his or her sub-commissioners or deputy commissioners as outlined in the Bill, it would be very useful to be absolutely clear that we are covering reservists as well as regulars, which I assume is the Government’s intention but which is not entirely clear.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned cadets, which also came up in discussions last week. I assume they do not fall within the Bill’s remit because they are not subject to service law, but are there ways in which they, too, would be in scope?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Harlech for tabling Amendments 21A and 21B, which seek to ensure that the commissioner prioritises the interests of the reserves appropriately. My noble friend has brought some excellent expertise to this issue as a serving reserve officer himself. The importance of the reserves within the overall Armed Forces is undeniable; their critical role is both admired and valued by all.

As the Minister will no doubt tell us, reserves will have recourse to the commissioner because they are subject to service law when in training and on active duty. That said, my noble friend is seeking to make a broader point that the commissioner should consider the interests and experiences of the reserves equally to those of regular personnel. We support him in his desire to ensure that our reserve units are prioritised appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we see Amendment 23 as a minor and technical amendment, in that it makes provision that is consequential to Clause 3. The purpose of Clause 3 is to ensure that the admissibility decisions—decisions about whether a service complaint is admissible and can be progressed in the first instance—can be made by civilians as well as officers. Clause 3 does this by amending Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than it having to take up officers’ time in every case. We intend that decisions will be made by suitably qualified and trained civil servants. Given that these decisions are procedural in nature, this feels appropriate and is the only minor amendment that we have made to the service complaints system in the Bill.

However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate officer in the single services. The commissioner will absorb these functions from the ombudsman and will therefore be able to refer complaints into the system as well. In drafting the Bill, it was an oversight that we did not include this necessary consequential amendment as a result of Clause 3 to ensure that this change was reflected consistently across the legislation.

I say to the noble Baroness and others that the provision was already considered in Clause 3 during the Bill’s passage, and it does not exclude the military. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will take it from the Minister that this is a technical change that is necessary as a consequential. I will not raise further questions.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, we may be getting near the end of the business, but my work here is not yet done. I thank the Minister for his comments and address my remarks particularly to Amendment 23. The group has indeed been given the title “minor and technical” by the Government, and I know that the Minister has, in good faith, accepted the advice of his officials in that respect. But this amendment makes consequential provision to Clause 3, and it therefore actually makes a substantive change to the process by which complaints are handled—and, crucially, who is responsible.

As the Minister outlined, Clause 3 substitutes the words “a person” for “an officer” in Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006. That section outlines the procedure for making a service complaint. Currently, the process begins with a person subject to service law making a complaint to an officer, and that officer then decides whether the complaint is admissible, as per regulations from the Defence Council. If that officer decides that the complaint is not admissible, the person who made the complaint can apply to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for a review, and the ombudsman can then make a decision that is binding on the complainant and the officer to whom the complaint was made.

Section 340N sets out the proposal for a referral of an allegation, whereby the ombudsman—soon to be the commissioner—may refer an allegation to the appropriate officer. Clause 3 therefore changes the process for an admissibility decision so that a person subject to service law can make a complaint to a person other than an officer, which could be a civilian or, I presume, someone of any other rank. If that person decides that the complaint is inadmissible, the complainant can appeal to the commissioner. Government Amendment 23 means that the commissioner may refer an allegation to an appropriate person, who could also be a civilian—but what civilian? Is the type of civilian to be further specified in statute, or by statutory instrument?

It seems to me that this proposal does not simply alter the language of the 2006 Act to permit a complaint to be made to the commissioner; it also enables a civilian to make an admissibility decision, which can then be referred to the commissioner. That is a major change to the current system, and it begs the question: why would the commissioner need to be able to refer an allegation to a person who is not an officer, and why would a person who is not an officer make a decision about the admissibility of a complaint? The implication is that there will potentially be a civilian in between the person making a complaint and the commissioner, yet the complainant may be content to involve the chain of command.

Can the Minister establish whether this is a substantive change to the 2006 Act? Does it mean that civilians could be dealing with allegations referred by the commissioner? If so, does this mean that a civil servant, perhaps, could take over the role of complaints and welfare, as opposed to officers—and, if so, would that not interfere with the chain of command? It appears to me that this amendment, which is no doubt well intended and which may be the consequence of a desire to keep drafting neat, introduces some very real concerns. It is not technical—it goes a lot further than that—and, as I said, could risk interfering with the chain of command. Can the Minister confirm whether this change is intended to grant responsibility to other ranks or civilians in respect of service complaints?

For the record, I should say that it is the policy of the Official Opposition that substantive government amendments to Bills should be made not in Grand Committee but on the Floor of the House. Consequently, if this amendment should be shown to be substantive, which I suspect that it is, rather than minor and technical, I would be obliged to object to it today and ask the Minister to bring it to the House on Report so it can be properly scrutinised. Having said that, we want to probe this change and understand it fully, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. He may wish to consider, depending on what his views are, withdrawing Amendment 23 and using Report to clarify the position—but I am very happy to listen to his comments.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must—(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is always time for a new experience. Despite having been in your Lordships’ House for 10 and a half years, this is the first time that I have ever moved an amendment as the first amendment in Committee, which means that I do not have any experience of quite what I am supposed to do, other than to stand up and say that I am moving the amendment in my name.

I am very aware that, at various Committee stages of Bills, the movers of amendments seem to talk at great length. The bit that I do know is that I am not supposed to give another Second Reading speech—but I also noted before I arrived that it said that movers should not speak for more than 15 minutes, and I am moving the first amendment in two groups. For the benefit of everyone in Grand Committee this afternoon, noble Lords will all be extremely relieved to know that I do not plan to speak for more than 15 minutes in total, across all five groups, unless I am interrupted or heckled. We were all very clear at Second Reading that this is an important Bill and that we all broadly support it and wish it well. Any amendments that we bring forward are intended to improve it and not in any way to undermine it. It is very much in that spirit that the first amendment is proposed.

This amendment is in a little group all on its own, because it refers to the Armed Forces covenant. When the Armed Forces covenant has come up previously, it was very clear under the previous Government that there was a commitment to it and a desire that it should apply to businesses and maybe to schools, the health service or to other branches external to government—but the Government themselves and the MoD were not subject to the Armed Forces covenant. From these Benches, we always felt that that was a bit of a gap. In looking at this new role for the Armed Forces commissioner, it seems entirely appropriate that the person appointed should pay due attention to the Armed Forces covenant and that they should

“uphold and give due regard”

to it, in the wording of the amendment.

We also think that it would be helpful for the Armed Forces commissioner to monitor the Armed Forces covenant and how far the principles and commitments are being upheld. It is an important document and an important covenant, yet sometimes it seems to be honoured more in the breach than in the reality. Therefore, in that spirit, we want to ask His Majesty’s Government at least to think about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant. With that, I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that this is the first time she has ever moved an amendment in Committee—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The first amendment.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In my case, it is the first time I have ever been at a Committee on a Bill on the Armed Forces. When I walked in the door and was handed the latest regulations and so on, for which we are all very grateful, I must admit that when I looked at some of the amendments, I wondered where the disagreements are going to lie. As someone who comes fresh to this, I should have to say briefly—I am going to be briefer than the noble Baroness—that I thought, “This seems like a reasonable amendment. What’s wrong with it?” So when my noble friend the Minister replies, I should be grateful to have explained what may be the objections to this amendment, because if there is something I do not understand about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant, I should very much like to know.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

Perhaps I may start by welcoming everybody to the Committee, and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the way in which she introduced the amendment, and in particular the points she made about the general approval that everyone has with respect to the main thrust of the Bill. But of course, that does not negate the opportunity and chance for us to discuss how we may test what the Government are thinking and, where appropriate, suggest improvements.

I shall reflect widely on the various points that are made and my intention is that, between Committee and Report, we will have meetings between ourselves so that we can discuss how we might take all this forward. I say that as a general view as to what my intention is in order to make progress on the Bill, so that everyone will feel as though the contributions they have made have helped. I cannot promise the answers will necessarily be those that everybody would want, but certainly it is my intention, following Committee, to work with people to look at the various discussions that have taken place.

I apologise for the fact that the draft regulations dealing with the definition of what we mean with respect to a family have been made available online only an hour or two ago. Certainly, we gave them out as people came into the Room. There is, I am afraid, nothing I can add other than to say it was an administrative oversight, and I apologise profusely to everyone for that. I also know how irritating it is, having sat where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is, to have to wait for regulations that do not appear. I can only apologise to the Committee for that.

It may have been the first time that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, introduced an amendment, but nobody would have known. It is a very important amendment. I thank noble Lords and Baronesses here today for turning their expertise to the scrutiny of the Bill and for offering their board support to its principle and purpose. The ongoing welfare of our serving personnel and their families must remain a priority for this Government and the commissioner. The amendments we are considering today will do much to keep their welfare at the forefront of our minds in both Houses of Parliament.

I declare an interest, as my son-in-law is an active member of the Reserve Forces.

Amendment 1 is on the important issue of the Armed Forces covenant. As the noble Baroness said, its effect would be to place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. As I am sure noble Lords know—and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out—the Armed Forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve, and those who have served in the past and their families, including the bereaved. This Government, as the last Government were, are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. Indeed, our manifesto included a commitment to place the covenant fully into law with an ambition to include that in the next Armed Forces Act.

An important aspect of the covenant is that it applies to the entirety of the Armed Forces community, which encompasses both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. As the noble Baroness knows, the Armed Forces commissioner is very focused on the serving community and their families. It will, of course, be perfectly proper for the commissioner to consider covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families, and I would imagine that those issues will be very much at the heart of the “general service welfare” matters that are within the remit of the commissioner to investigate. However, I strongly believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the issues of our serving community, and it is in that role where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make the real impact that we all want.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness that the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify this in the Bill, but I do not, in any way, decry the importance of the Armed Forces covenant, which every member of this Committee supports. We aim to extend and develop that in the Armed Forces Act that is coming in the not-too-distant future. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, but I thank her for the thrust of the point that it made.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. If I may give a slightly flippant response to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who said that the amendment looks straightforward and is difficult to disagree with, so “How can the Government not agree with it?”, it sometimes feels with legislation that, however relevant an amendment might be, Governments of whichever flavour say, “No, we can’t possibly agree with this amendment, but we might be able to come back with something worded a little differently”. Government amendments might look similar to opposition amendments, but they may be accepted.

On this occasion, I hear what the Minister said on the specific reasons why the target audience of the Armed Forces commissioner is somewhat different to that of a wider role that would include veterans and other members of the Armed Forces community. However, I am still slightly concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out that it is axiomatic that the Armed Forces commissioner would be bound by the Armed Forces covenant, but one of our concerns is that the Government seem to think that the Armed Forces covenant is something that other organisations should implement; they have not bound themselves to it, somehow. I look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward in the next Armed Forces Bill—they seem to come along quite regularly, a bit like Christmas. We look forward to that but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(7) For the purposes of this section, “persons subject to service law” includes people going through the recruitment process to join any branch of the armed forces, and “relevant family members” includes the family members of people going through any such recruitment process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow those currently going through the recruitment process to join the armed forces to use the Armed Forces Commissioner for its intended purposes.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, both the amendments in this group are in my name, and Amendment 10 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Amendment 2 relates to a matter of particular concern to my honourable friend in the other place: that we need to be very mindful of those who are going through the recruitment process. The legislation is obviously about those subject to service law, but one of the concerns is that, as people go through the recruitment process, they are potentially vulnerable. Clearly, that would not apply to somebody just walking into an Army recruitment office, but if somebody has got to the point of applying, going through the medical process and then going through various assessments to see whether they are suitable to be recruited—apparently there is sometimes a requirement to stay overnight, for example—there is a real concern that we need to make sure that they are not put in any difficulty, particularly when it comes to young people.

If there is no Service Complaints Commissioner because the role is being taken over by the Armed Forces commissioner, will it be possible for those going through the recruitment process to be part of that? I know that the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful if he would at least explain to the Grand Committee how the interests of those going through the recruitment process, particularly the very young, will be maintained and if he would confirm that safeguarding will be in place.

Amendment 10 is to some extent related to the draft regulations that have just appeared. At Second Reading the Minister said that he would make sure that the draft regulations would be out in good time before Grand Committee—I think he may have said that it would be not just half an hour before. They arrived a good two hours before Grand Committee, so we are probably winning. The draft regulations talk about deceased service personnel’s family, so that bit of our amendment has already been covered, but I have two questions, one of which is linked to the amendment as initially tabled, which is about kinship carers and whether the language used in the draft regulations is intended to cover that or whether we still need to think about a more specific amendment on kinship carers coming back on Report.

At the moment, the various clauses in the draft regulations talk about “relevant family members”, including those for whom someone

“has assumed regular and substantial caring responsibilities”,

but there is very little definition of what is meant by that. It may be that there is other, not necessarily Armed Forces legislation, where there are very clear definitions, but it would be helpful for Grand Committee to understand how His Majesty’s Government understand that.

As the draft regulations happen to be in front of us, I wonder whether this is the right place to ask the Minister my second question relating to them, regarding Regulation 2(3)(b) about

“a former spouse or civil partner or a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”.

I am just wondering how far the remit of “relevant family members” is intended to extend. If we are talking about someone at the time of a bereavement, it is usually clear who is the spouse or civil partner. Where we are dealing with people who have previously held those roles, is it anyone who has previously been in the role of something similar to a spouse or civil partner? How do His Majesty’s Government intend to define that? Is the Armed Forces commissioner supposed to deal with all those relationships, or will we be looking at a narrower definition? I beg to move.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I will speak against Amendment 2. I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board.

I understand the intent, but my objection to Amendment 2 is based on practicality. The recruitment process has changed dramatically in recent years. Indeed, you can start your recruitment process not by going into an Army recruitment centre but simply by going online and clicking a button. Last year alone, we had over 100,000 applicants to the Regular Army and over 30,000 applicants to the Army Reserve. That was just for a single service, so I think it is fair to say that probably in excess of 200,000 people will have applied to join the Armed Forces over the past year. If we were to allow these people to access this system, I think the system would simply be overwhelmed and goodness knows what the cost would be.

The principle is that those who are subject to service law are subject to the Bill, and service law does not kick in until the point of attestation, when you actually join the Army. I was privileged to be in Nepal only three weeks ago to witness our next 372 Gurkhas being attested into the British Army. I understand the sentiment, but, with the greatest of respect, I think it is simply impractical. We would open the aperture of the system to so many people that we would run the risk of the system simply not working because it would be overwhelmed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

That is a very helpful intervention, and we are probably all delighted to hear that there were so many applications for the Army last year, given that recruitment has been an issue. Could the noble Lord continue with some of that exposition? Obviously, it is possible to apply by going online and clicking a button and, clearly, the applicant should not have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner at that stage. But at the stage where somebody is going through a medical or being assessed, could there be concerns that we need to think about, even if that is not through the Armed Forces commissioner?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point, which is why I said at the start of my remarks that I understood the intent behind what she is trying to achieve. Without getting distracted, the challenge that we face at the moment is a crisis not of recruitment but of conversion. One of our biggest challenges is that we have a conversion rate—forgive me if this figure is not quite right—of about 13 or 14 to one in the Army and about 20 to one in the Army Reserve. The challenge is in the process of recruitment and the time that it takes. I am straying beyond my role here today, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the Armed Forces are seeking to address that. Those who are frustrated in that process probably should have the ability to have redress, but I am not sure that this process is the right one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. Let us be clear that the service complaints system remains in place; it is the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities that are being transferred into the Armed Forces commissioner role. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for allowing me to reiterate that point. He is absolutely right that, in most circumstances, the commissioner will refer individual service complaints back to the individual service for it to look into. I agree with him on his point about ensuring that that system continues and works in the way that we would all want it to, and the Armed Forces commissioner’s responsibility is with respect to the general welfare issues that arise.

In answer to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, when we look at how we publicise that—the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, has highlighted the reserves—we will make sure that we take on board the point that the noble Lord just made so that there is no confusion, but that at the same time we create a culture where people feel able to bring something forward to the appropriate body, whatever that may be.

I just want to address another point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made. It was a very important point, which should be reiterated, about how some of the poor behaviours we see reflect on the image in total of the Armed Forces. That is why it is so important to answer the “So what?” question.

I just say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate—or maybe it is to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—that, subject to the will of Parliament, we hope that the Bill will get Royal Assent in late spring this year, and the Armed Forces Bill will come into effect early in 2026. So that is the timeline that that we are operating to.

Just for information to the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s contract runs out at the end of 2025, but within the Bill there are transitional arrangements that are able to be made should there be a period between the end of her contract and the start of the Armed Forces commissioner role. I just want to be clear about that.

I turn to the formal remarks that I wish to make. Amendment 2 relates to the addition of those undergoing the recruitment to the Armed Forces so that they come under the commissioner’s scope. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s concerns about potential recruits. From the first day in uniform to the last, the Government are committed to all members of the Armed Forces and to supporting their families. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete attestation—as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned—transforming them into recruits who are members of the Armed Forces. This means that they and their families are within the commissioner’s scope.

The experience of a potential recruit—a candidate—is very important and, as such, we have set a new ambition for the Armed Forces to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days, and to provide a provisional start date within 30 days. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out—the figure I have is more than 100,000—up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope may vastly increase the workload of the commissioner, watering down their ability to focus on other key areas impacting service personnel and their families.

To reassure noble Lords, the Government’s work on improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent, highlighting that defence is a modern forward-thinking and forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career. Our aim is to attract and recruit more, as well as to maximise the number of applicants who successfully enter and remain in the Armed Forces’ employment.

Turning to Amendment 10, I will start to answer some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised concerning the definition of “families”. I again thank the noble Earl and thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. I acknowledge her concerns about providing certainty to all Members on the application of the Bill. I promised that during Second Reading, and I have apologised for the late arrival of the regulations. But the debate that we have had from my noble friend Lord Beamish and others about what should be in those regulations will be something that we can return to as the Bill progresses but also when the draft regulations are debated by this place and the other place.

I welcome the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and thank it for considering the Bill so carefully. It provides a vital role in ensuring the appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated powers, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before Report.

The families definition outlined in the regulations seeks to include all groups that have a close familial relationship with the serviceperson. In broad categories, the draft definition covers partners or former partners of a serviceperson, including those who are married or in a civil partnership, or someone in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership—namely, a long-term relationship. I can hear others already saying, “What do you mean by ‘long-term’?” I just say that we are attempting to create a definition—I am just trying to head off my noble friend Lord Beamish before he challenges me on what “long-term” means. The serious point is that we are trying to have a wide definition, and we understand the difficulty that that raises. But we will take on board the points that people make.

The draft definition also includes children of the serviceperson—either the serviceperson’s own children or their stepchildren—as well as their partner’s children or a child for whom the serviceperson is caring or has financial responsibilities. It includes parental figures of the serviceperson, which will include parents and stepparents and anyone who acted in a parental role when the serviceperson was under 18, such as a long-term foster carer or kinship carer. The definition also includes a sibling of the serviceperson, be that a full or half sibling or a stepsibling, or someone who legitimately considers themselves a sibling of a serviceperson through their upbringing. Again, noble Lords can understand some of the difficulty that may arise with that, but they can understand our attempt to capture as wide a number of people as we can.

The draft definition also includes other specified relatives of the serviceperson or their partner where they are part of the serviceperson’s household, are financially dependent on them or are cared for by the serviceperson or their partner. It includes bereaved family members if they fall under any of the above categories immediately before the serviceperson’s death. Although the definition explicitly includes bereaved families, it does not specifically use the term “kinship carers”. The definition has been drafted to ensure that service personnel who are kinship carers, or kinship carers of the serviceperson when they were growing up, are in scope, thus giving biological parents and those who acted as a kinship carer the same access to the commissioner.

Going back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that is why there is a difference between the definition here and some of the other definitions with respect to the use of “families”. Our intention is to try to draw that as widely as possible and, therefore, that is why there are some of the differences that the noble Earl mentioned. I hope that provides some of the reassurances that the noble Baroness, on both her amendments, is trying to achieve.

I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on this aspect of the Bill. We will again take into account the points that have been made and reflect on them, not least about the need for us to consider the draft regulations, as well as the points that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made about recruit training and a need for us to consider where particular arrangements may be made. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this fascinating debate on the two amendments in this group. Several of us have learned a lot, and some are now probably a little puzzled about the status of an engagement versus a civil partnership versus a marriage because, to most people, an engaged person is not the same. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that we might want to come back to that issue.

However, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for clarifying His Majesty’s Government’s attempt to define family relationships broadly, because some years ago, when I was first on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I was on a visit and was told of some frustrations of people not being able to get accommodation because of certain familial relationships that were not deemed to be actual relationships. The fact that the draft regulation is going to be broad in scope is welcome. The formal answer that the Minister gave when he was talking about foster relationships and so on probably covers the kinship aspects that we are looking for in that part of Amendment 10. We look forward to a further iteration of the draft regulations and definitions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me correct something before we move on. I said that the Armed Forces Bill will come into force in early 2026. That is not correct; I misspoke, of course. The Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. I apologise profusely for that error and hope that everyone who listens to our proceedings, legal or otherwise, now fully understands that I meant the Armed Forces commissioner, which, I suspect, is what everybody in the Committee thought I meant. Just for the sake of clarity, I mean the Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. The Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent by the end of 2026.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. I suspect most Members of the Grand Committee were not necessarily listening so closely.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Clearly, it was only I who was not listening sufficiently closely, but I understood it as being the Armed Forces commissioner rather than the next Armed Forces Bill. However, I will probably have to not move Amendment 10 at a later point in proceedings.

However, the amendment has elicited a fascinating debate that allowed us to explore certain aspects of the recruitment process and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out, the group that sounds similar to, but has a different role from, that of the recruit trainees. I should very much like the opportunity outside Committee to talk further with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the Minister, because my sense from the debate was there may well be some value in thinking about making it clear that that part of the role of the Armed Forces commissioner would indeed be to pay particular attention to the situation of recruit trainees, for example. I realise the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, “Ah but we must make sure that we do not overwhelm the Armed Forces commissioner”, and I completely understand that. The role as stated in the Bill is not just to be the ombudsperson with a different name; it is also clearly to be about promoting the welfare of persons subject to service law.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a strong case for looking closely at how recruit trainees are being looked after. So I may wish to bring back an amended amendment, or a different amendment, on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 3— I will refer to Amendment 5 later—is like Amendment 4 in the sense that it covers parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. It does so in different ways, but Amendment 3, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, puts forward one way of achieving this.

In the Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in the House of Commons, much play was made of the fact that the Armed Forces commissioner will be akin to the German armed forces commissioner. My right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State, said:

“The role is inspired by the long-established German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, which enjoys cross-party support in the Bundestag and support across the military”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 75.]


He then went on to quote the present commissioner for Germany’s armed forces, who welcomes and looks forward to the new Armed Forces commissioner being installed in the UK.

Here, my noble friend the Minister also referred to the inspiration from Germany for the Armed Forces commissioner when he said this at Second Reading:

“The Bill was inspired by the long-established and successful German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, who has been championing and providing a voice to Germany’s armed forces for almost 70 years … Our proposed Armed Forces commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that may impact service life”.—[Official Report, 5/3/25; col. 302.]


So, really, the spark that has done this is the German system.

I have to say, that is where it departs a little. The German system looks at the thematic issues that will be the remit of the new commissioner and she can also look at general service complaints, but the way in which the German commissioner is appointed is very interesting and very different from what is being proposed in this Bill. At the moment, this is what is proposed in paragraph 3 of the new schedule to be inserted by Schedule 1:

“The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State”.


So the Secretary of State will be the person who appoints this person and decides who they should be, but the German system is very different. The German armed forces parliamentary commissioner is established under the German Basic Law, which was framed in 1949 and, I think, clarified in 1956. The Bundestag parliamentary commissioner has some of the same remit as the proposed commissioner in the UK but there is the force of federal law behind him or her.

Then, we come on to how the German commissioner is appointed. They are elected by the Bundestag, whose website says:

“The Bundestag shall elect the Commissioner by secret ballot with a majority of its Members”.


It goes on to say that candidates may be put forward

“by the Defence Committee, the parliamentary groups”

or groups of members of the Bundestag for this purpose. It says that there should be no debate and that there is a simple vote. It also states:

“Every German who is entitled to be elected to the Bundestag and has attained the age of 35 shall be eligible for the office of Commissioner”.


Although my noble friend and the Secretary of State have argued that this would be akin to the German system, I am not sure that it is, given the powers, process and parliamentary scrutiny that it has. Am I surprised that, in drafting this, they have ignored the bit about Parliament? No, I am not, because the Executive are never keen on giving up power or ceding it to Parliament. I have no doubt that, following this debate, the Minister’s civil servants will come up with umpteen reasons why this cannot be done and, if it was, that somehow the earth would stop spinning and the sun would stop rising.

I have known my noble friend for many years and, as I always like to be helpful, I point out that there is a precedent already in the UK in the appointment of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I was not aware how he or she was appointed until I looked it up, but it is very much Parliament’s responsibility to appoint that individual. It is an open competition, and there is then an interview panel and final selection, which is done by the chair of the PACAC—the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee —an experienced ombudsman, and an independent panel. In that case, Parliament, via the role of those two individuals, has a direct say in selecting that person, so I am sure that we could come up with some system whereby Parliament could have a more direct say in who this person will be. It is a new role, and if the Government are arguing that they want to mimic or mirror the German system, Parliament needs to have a role in it. As the Bill stands, it has no role at all.

I know that, in Amendment 4, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, puts forward an alternative method of involving Parliament. We need to look at ways in which this could be achieved because, without it, the question of who the individual is—I will come on to this later regarding finance—could be at the behest of the Government of the day. If we are trying to give the impression that this person will be independent and accountable to not only the Armed Forces but the general public, and have an oversight role, having Parliament in that process is important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I suggest that, before the nomination is sent to the King, it should go through both Houses of Parliament. That would give at least some oversight of the mechanism.

Amendment 5, which is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is about the tenure of office, where again the Bill tries to mimic the German system but does not quite do it. Under the Bill as currently outlined, the tenure is a five-year term that can be extended but only for another two years. I wonder where they got the extra two years from. I think that was a suggestion in an annual report from one of the existing ombudsmen, but why two years? Amendment 5 proposes that the tenure should be up to two five-year terms. That would be in line with the German system, which is a five-year term that can then be repeated for another five years.

I accept that, with public appointments, it is important to get a turnover of people, but with this role, first, it is a new role. Secondly, the individual is not going to be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant, so he or she might have to take a long time to get themselves up to speed with the way in which our Armed Forces are structured and operate. That is before, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, they get their head around the complex nature of the Armed Forces family.

The option of having an extra five years would be better. You only have to look at the workload in the present ombudsman’s report, which has seen something like a 25% increase in complaints. If this person is going to be hit with that from day one, they are going to be very busy. Added to that role—remember that this is a new and extended role—they will do thematic reviews. An obvious one would be on initial recruitment, for example. However, we have looked at this in the past in terms of the Nicholas Blake report into the sad deaths around Deepcut. The House of Commons Select Committee also did quite a major report on that back in 2006. It is sad that some of those things have not changed.

It would be in order to extend that person’s tenure. It would also allow the individual to get a quicker under- standing and be able to follow through on reports. I think some of these thematic reports will take a long time to go through. If they are going to make a change and have weight, they are going to have to be done thoroughly without a time limit that means it will be passed to a new commissioner or, somehow, they will run out of time.

All I will say to my noble friend is that I have looked at the German system; this is not the German system. It can be nearer to the German system if we make some amendments to it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4 and 21, which are in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, pointed out, in some ways Amendments 3 and 4 are trying to bring a parliamentary dimension to the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. I fully agree with everything the noble Lord said on Amendment 3.

There is no objection from these Benches to Amendment 3; it seems a very reasonable amendment. Indeed, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is wrong, and the Box—although there is not officially a Box in Grand Committee—officials are not going to be able to give the Minister a bit of paper to tell him that there is no way on earth there can be a parliamentary vote. Some sort of statutory instrument and a negative or positive approval in both Houses seems to be de minimis. I would hope that His Majesty’s Government will think seriously about allowing some parliamentary involvement in the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner.

One of the problems I envisage with the straightforward negative or even a positive assent is that normally in Grand Committee, when we have a statutory instrument, it feels a little bit like the Scottish play:

“When shall we three meet again?”


Very often, it is the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the Labour Benches—now the Government Benches —and either the noble Earl, Lord Minto, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and me. Very often, there is nobody else other than officials who are required to be here looking at statutory instruments. If we are talking about a serious role for Parliament looking at the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner, I would like to advocate for a stronger role, which may include a committee as outlined by Amendment 4.

Amendments 3 and 4 are almost different models of how to make an amendment. The one from the Liberal Democrat Benches almost looks as if my colleagues, in drafting it, came up with something from the European Parliament, which is extremely detailed about what is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has done something that is nice, skeleton legislation in the true Westminster style. However, I suggest that including a committee’s involvement—most logically the House of Commons Defence Committee, and maybe also the opportunity to speak to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee—could be an important way of ensuring that the commissioner is a robust appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

An individual can become commissioner if they have been a member of the Armed Forces, but not if they are a serving member.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clarification. That is what I had assumed on reading the Bill, but I wanted to make sure that that was absolutely right.

The Minister has pre-empted Amendment 21 in some ways. It is simply a request for some clarification on the timeframe. We say in the amendment that the Secretary of State should publish an agreed timetable within one month. I suspect the Minister might find a reason why that should not be the case, but can we have a little more clarification on the timeframe? Will it depend on the individual appointed, or are His Majesty’s Government committed to the commissioner being in post on, say, 1 January 2026?

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, to which I have added my name. We spent quite a lot of time during Second Reading and—I just checked—the first part of the Minister’s response from the Front Bench on the question of what difference this will make. I think all noble Lords who took part at Second Reading agreed that that is the essence. To that extent, Amendment 3 is quite important, because it goes to the heart of the question of what difference it will make.

The reason why the German system works the way it does is that the German armed forces commissioner is very clearly the servant of the Bundestag; he or she sits in the Bundestag alongside the clerks and, indeed, if the Bundestag wishes it to happen, it can request that the armed forces commissioner can participate actively in debates around the armed forces in the Chamber. So it is a very different model, and it really does make a difference, because it is markedly different from what we are suggesting.

This is the third attempt by us to try to get a form of ombudsman or Armed Forces commissioner to be more effective. We had the first one in 2008, the second iteration in 2016, and this is the third bite of the cherry to try to get it right. Clearly, if this is the third time we are doing it, it ain’t that simple. For all sorts of excellent reasons, the Armed Forces are a very particular culture and ecosystem, which they need to be to do what they do, but the flip side of having a really effective and disciplined military is that, for all sorts of reasons that it may not completely understand itself, it may be quite resistant to attempts that it sees as coming from outside—from people who do not really understand the culture and history and the things that are so important. The things that are not said are often more important than the things that are said.

The problem is that, at the moment, some of us feel that, while this is very well intended, it is very cautious indeed. For the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence to retain as much ownership and control of this as will inevitably be the case is unlikely to make the sort of step change that I think a lot of us were hoping and aspiring to believe this new role could actually make. I think that this needs to be looked at—it is a probing amendment—and I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look very carefully.

As part of my research for this proposal, I asked an individual who is actively involved in teaching in Shrivenham to take a poll after talking to a few people about this Bill. The first thing that this person found was that almost everybody spoken to in Shrivenham—this was last week—was not actually aware of this Bill. I do not know how well publicised this Bill is within the Armed Forces, but you would expect and hope that the flagship or leadership organisations of the Armed Forces would be aware of it and indeed might even perhaps been talking about it a bit. However, apparently this was not the case—but this was not a professional Sir John Curtice-type opinion poll but just somebody going around and talking to other people at Shrivenham.

The other experience that this individual had, after a brief explanation of what this role was going to be, was an almost immediate response from everybody; people felt that what they described as the “rigidity”, with a small “R”, of the armed services culture would find it pretty easy to resist the type of role that is being envisaged.

The bottom line is whether this is going to make a difference. It is important to be able to step back from this Bill and perhaps to take some more soundings from within the Armed Forces just to try to understand how likely they feel this will make a real difference. One senses that the onus of this Bill is coming primarily from the Ministry of Defence itself, and there is slightly less pull, if you like, from those parts within the Armed Forces and the extended family members that we were talking about. I am not sure how clearly their voices and experiences are being heard, because what we have at the moment clearly is not working.

I shall move quickly to Amendment 5 and term of office. The German term of office is five years. It can be renewed; it usually has not been renewed. Almost every time a new commissioner is appointed in Germany, it is an ex-Member of Parliament—usually an ex-member of the defence committee that is the equivalent of our Defence Select Committee. So they come with some live experience and with a network within Parliament that they are easily able to access; they can be quite influential behind the scenes. That system works well but, again, I come back to what we asked earlier: will this measure make a difference?

The aspiration is that this new role will make a discernible difference. In order for it to do that, clearly, it needs to do a lot of things differently to the way in which things have been done to date; and to find an effective way of doing things differently that works better. One will not get it right first time every time. It will be an iterative process: there will be successes, failures, brick walls and elephant traps. All sorts of things will be happening. Building up the types of resource and knowledge that will be required to gain momentum to carry this new role forward into the term of whoever follows the first commissioner will require giving the first commissioner the leeway and resources to make a difference.

I just feel that things are a bit timid at the moment. If we focus on the complexity of the task that we are asking this new function to do—in particular, if we try to think, “What should this look like 10 years from now? What do we hope would be happening? How would this be working?”—and know both where we want to get to and where we are now, we can then gauge the complexity of the task of getting from A to B. That might result in looking at some of these aspects in a slightly different, perhaps more beneficial, way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker]

I think my noble friend knows the answer to his own question, which is: no, it is not in the Bill—that is what he wants me to say. From his own experience, he knows that the Secretary of State said in the other place, and read into the record, the importance of the role of the Defence Committee and the importance of its recommendations. Of course, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for that. In my view, if the Defence Committee was so exercised about a particular appointment and had concerns about it, the Secretary of State could of course still go ahead but it is difficult to believe that they would not consider that very deeply before confirming that appointment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, disagreed with Amendment 4 on the grounds of its length. Might His Majesty’s Government be open to a very small amendment, which could be “the Secretary of State appointing, on the advice of the Defence Select Committee”, or something of that ilk? That would meet the noble and gallant Lord’s concern about adding too many words to statute, but it would put in the Bill the sort of parliamentary engagement that we might be looking for.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without saying whether that is a good or a bad idea, what I have said is that—although this is not actually in the Bill, as my noble friend said—clearly, our view is that going through the Defence Committee is the appropriate parliamentary involvement. We have said that we can consider the points that have been made in Committee, and I have said that we can meet to discuss them. Alongside that, we can discuss the length of term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Again, this goes to the heart of the issue of independence. I accept that the Government wish to ensure that this individual and the office are independent and cannot be influenced, or have their work affected, by the Ministry of Defence. But at the moment the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State may make payments and provide other financial assistance to the Commissioner”.


I am sure my noble friend will turn around and say, “Well, it would be unheard of for a Secretary of State to withhold money”—in a minute I shall come on to an example of where this actually happened. But I learned a long time ago in local government that, if you control the purse strings, you control a lot of influence in terms of how you can affect the actions of any public body or any activity.

Again, referring to the German system, I accept, as my noble friend said—that this is not a direct copy of the German system. But there are safeguards in the German system because it says in the federal law there that the necessary staff equipment is made available to the commissioner for the performance of his or her functions, and it is a separate piece in the Bundestag’s budget. This is the budget that is drawn up by the Bundestag. It is a draft budget that is done by the Council of Elders and is then agreed to by the Bundestag. So, again, Parliament has a direct say. It has not been down to a Minister to decide that the Armed Forces commissioner will or will not get the finance, which is very different to what we are proposing here.

My noble friend said in the Second Reading debate and again today that the difference is that this will be put on a statutory footing and, therefore, that will make all the difference. It will not. The Intelligence and Security Committee is on a statutory footing under the Justice and Security Act 2013. I presently chair the committee, and it has not had its budget raised for the last 10 years. It has now got to a point where crisis talks are taking place over whether we can carry out our functions as a committee. That is because the previous Government took a clear decision not to increase the budget, even though we asked for moneys to be brought forward. So, again, just because things are on a statutory footing that does not mean that somehow they will be insulated from a future Secretary of State or Government —I am not suggesting that my noble friend or the Secretary of State would do this—who may not like what the commission is doing and may say, “We’re not going to give you another increase in your budget”. That is the death by a thousand cuts that has happened to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Likewise, I presume that the budget is within the remit of the MoD. I have not been a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, but I know the battles royal that there are over different priorities in the defence budget. That makes you wonder who would be arguing for this within the defence budget if it is coming across other things. Trying to be helpful, I am looking for other examples for the Minister of where we could perhaps have a different system. A different system would be, again, my old friend the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, whose money comes from the Treasury and is part of the Consolidated Fund, so it is not in a departmental budget. That at least gives some protection for that money. But this is a serious point, and how this can be remedied needs to be looked at.

This is a simple amendment, changing “may” to “must”, but, without it, the individual in the role would, as I say, be very vulnerable. Who in the MoD is actually arguing for the Armed Forces commissioner in terms of budget? Are they arguing for this rather than for some piece of shiny new kit in a procurement round, for example?

If we cannot have this amendment, some thought needs to be given before Report on, first, how the budget will be provided and guaranteed; and, secondly, how this will somehow be ring-fenced. Without that, it will be easy to kill this off, either by not giving it any finance at all or by cutting its budget over a number of years. Those are my points and that is the reason for this amendment. With that, I beg to move Amendment 6.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seems quite similar in form to the previous one. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has presented a modest amendment that would change “may” to “must”. The amendment I am speaking to is a little fuller; it would take more lines in statute. Although the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is no longer in his place, I stand with some caution because I realise that my amendment runs to three lines.

Its purpose is very similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. In many ways, his amendment does the job, and does so very neatly. Nevertheless, I will clarify a bit more why we feel that it is necessary to put in the Bill that funding and resources will be made available to the Armed Forces commissioner. It is precisely because, if there is no clarity and certainty on that, all the ambitions in the Bill are in danger. The idea is that the Armed Forces commissioner will be more than a glorified ombudsperson and that they will promote the welfare of the Armed Forces’ serving personnel and relevant family members, as well as promoting the Armed Forces more generally. How will the commissioner do that if they are not adequately resourced?

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is absolutely right: this is a time of financial pressures. There is a real danger that the sort of role that can be cut is the role of the Armed Forces commissioner. Although I know that we have guarantees that defence expenditure will be increased and that we keep talking about the size of the defence budget, it is still very small, relatively speaking. If this post is being funded out of MoD funding, there is a danger that it will not be a priority. Maybe it is the role of the Minister for the Armed Forces to argue for this post and, at each budget round, to make sure that there are no cuts—death by a thousand cuts—but I would not be so sanguine.

I would like the Grand Committee at least to think about the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and I are raising in our similar but different amendments; and to consider ways of ensuring that, if the Armed Forces commissioner is to be brought into place, they are able to do the job that His Majesty’s Government and this Committee want them to do and which the Armed Forces need them to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 8 and 9 are in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Goldie. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for adding his name to these amendments. I know that he is particularly concerned with these issues of welfare and their impacts on the families of our Armed Forces personnel.

These amendments seek to ensure that the commissioner will consider both the educational needs of service families and Armed Forces pensions. They therefore seek to expand on the somewhat limited definition of general service welfare matters in the Bill. I will preface my remarks by acknowledging that we have not presented an exhaustive list—nor do we intend to. But we believe that these issues are of sufficient importance to warrant debate during our deliberations today.

Many Armed Forces families depend on private schools. By the very nature of their service, personnel frequently find themselves moving locations, be that through overseas deployment or reassignment from one garrison or airbase to another. This poses a number of welfare concerns. It requires service personnel to either uproot their families or put them into an independent school, which allows their children to remain in a familiar educational setting. Imposing VAT on fees for independent schools will regrettably result in higher fees being passed on to the service men and women, who are simply trying to ensure the continuity of their children’s education.

I impress on the Minister that charging VAT on private school fees for military families will make becoming or remaining a service member less attractive, not more.

In response to this and in the interest of fairness, the Government have decided to uprate the continuity of education allowance. However, as my noble friend Lady Goldie has been keen to highlight through her Oral Question on 5 February and her letter to the Minister, there is real concern that this uprating will not be sufficient to cover the new higher fees. Unfortunately, this has the potential to negatively impact both recruitment and retention.

The issue that I have outlined is even greater when one considers the provision of special educational needs for the children of service personnel. There are already significant barriers to service families receiving adequate support for their children with special educational needs. It can take up to two years to receive an education, health and care plan from the local authority but, given that service personnel often find themselves relocating, this process is made all the harder.

There can be no doubt that the education of their children constitutes a serious welfare matter for those serving in our Armed Forces. All parents want the best for their families, and ensuring that they will not have to withdraw their children from school, or that they will be able to support their child with special educational needs, impacts on their morale. This is evidenced by responses to the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, where in 2024, 62% of respondents reported that the impact of service life on their families was the main reason for leaving the services. We know that more must be done to improve this, and I am concerned that some of the Government’s measures regarding education may have the reverse effect.

The intention of Amendment 9 is to confirm with absolute certainty that the commissioner will consider pensions and the role they play in recruitment and retention. Let us be in no doubt that they remain one of the major benefits offered to service personnel. In their Autumn Budget, the Government proposed charging inheritance tax on the death-in-service payment while a service member is not on active duty abroad. We know that the benefit will continue to be exempted when a service member dies when deployed on active duty, but the exemption will not apply when the death occurs at home. This is nothing less than an injustice. If Sergeant Jones, for example, has an unfortunate accident while driving his car and passes away, not on active service, he will be penalised. He may have just come back from an active war zone the day before, where, had he been killed, his benefit would have been protected.

The principle here is surely that it does not matter where a service member dies; their families will continue to grieve regardless. They will still require support, both financial and emotional, and the new commissioner should be able to provide that. This Bill is aimed at protecting the retention and recruitment of Armed Forces personnel. It seems fitting that the commissioner must therefore consider the education of service families and death-in-service payments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to what I hope is the last of my amendments today, Amendment 11, on the further matters that the commissioner may investigate. Before I speak to my amendment, I have a question that arises from the two amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, and so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, which is about the scope of the commissioner’s role. I think I heard the Minister say earlier in response to Amendment 2 that the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner applies as long as somebody is in uniform, from the day of attestation, and I understood it to be for the time that the person is in uniform, and that it did not also apply to veterans. I would be interested to know whether I have misunderstood or whether the amendments—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I apologise if I did not make this clear. The fundamental principle of the Bill is that the people who are in scope are those who are subject to service law, and their families. That is a really important point. The other point is that veterans are not in scope for the commissioner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I am most grateful to him for clarifying that. In which case, do I understand it correctly that Amendments 8 and 9 potentially go beyond the scope of the Bill because they talk about former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants? The Minister can come back to that, but I was slightly puzzled when I read those amendments.

Amendment 11 covers something that I hope is in scope, asking that the Armed Forces commissioner look in particular at certain more minority members of the Armed Forces. As seen in relatively recent reports—the Atherton report and the Etherton report—women and LGBT minority groups in the services have in the past been subject to particular disadvantages. There may also be other groups, so in many ways, this is a probing amendment. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I agree with, follows a similar pattern.

I am minded also to suggest that the Armed Forces commissioner could look at this, with special reference to recruit training. This means that, while I will not bring back Amendment 2, we might nevertheless bring back the idea of recruits in training being a particular focus of the Armed Forces commissioner—particularly in terms of that person being able to reach out to those in training and make them understand that role.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Now I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. She is talking about recruits in training, so once they have done the attestation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Yes. For the purposes of this I am making a verbal amendment to what is on the page; I am not proposing to bring back an amendment like Amendment 2 that would bring in hundreds of thousands of other people. I do not think that was ever the intention; the drafting was not as clear as it might have been. The amendment laid in the Commons and re-laid here was broader than it should have been.

Having listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my sense is that we should not only be looking at women, LGBT groups, BAME people, non-UK citizens and disabled people in the Armed Forces. We should also be thinking that this might be the time to think about the Armed Forces commissioner not just being available for those going through training, but it might be sensible to make sure that the communications are made to them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I apologise to the noble Baroness and the Committee more broadly for not being here when my name was attached to earlier amendments. I am not going to complain much about my latest train delays, but I will warn anyone heading on the east coast main line tonight that there are overhead wire problems.

I will speak specifically to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to which I have attached my name. I will also speak to my Amendment 12. I apologise for jumping on the back of the noble Baroness’s excellently drafted amendment but I thought there was one element missing, which is what I have added here. This proposed new clause is headed:

“Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel”.


The Committee will be familiar with my long-term concerns about service personnel who were recruited under the age of 18 and those in the services under the age of 18, which my amendment addresses. I think the way the noble Baroness constructed Amendment 11 set out very well the reasons why and how this should be done. Proposed new subsection 3 in my amendment says that the commissioner must

“maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms”.

To address the first point about evidence, I think we are all very aware of this. I know about the situation of recruits under 18 because of the work of the Child Rights International Network and a series of reports it produced. We are aware of cases of women in the military. We can think back to the situation where we saw a big national campaign about Gurkha veterans a few years ago. We often find out about these issues as they are drawn to our attention through the efforts of NGOs, campaign groups and the work of the affected personnel themselves—and then it is splashed all over the media.

That is not the way in which the Government and Parliament should be made aware of what is happening. We need a regular, steady, reporting record that enables political direction to come from both Parliament and Ministers towards the military, saying, “There’s a problem here; something needs to be done about it”. Keeping up-to-date evidence and not relying on the efforts of volunteers and the personnel themselves is very much addressed by this.

I have put this on the record before, but I have to note the way in which the situation of recruits under 18 has drawn the attention of the United Nations. We referred at Second Reading to one tragic suicide case but of course there are many. CRIN tells us that recruits under 18 are tragically three times more likely to die by suicide than their peers of the same age and two times more likely to die from suicide as adult joiners of the military. We have heard complaints about the Harrogate college and 13 reports of sexual assault cases in a year. I think I can probably guess what the Minister will say—that we have to leave this to the Armed Forces commissioner to decide for themselves.

Ukraine: UK Policy

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the choreography this evening seems to have got slightly muddled. I was all prepped to stand up and say how delighted I was to be speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, with whom I very much agreed. Two additional speeches in the gap later, I rise to say how very much I welcome the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, because he raised some issues that need to be taken very seriously.

Like most noble Lords in the Chamber this evening, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for raising the issue for debate. But, like my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, from these Benches I have to reiterate our support for His Majesty’s Government’s stance on, and absolute unwavering support for, Ukraine. There may have been a change of Government in the United States, but we do not need to criticise or denigrate the President of the United States to say that, whatever his views about Ukraine, our position is unchanged and must be unchanged.

Donald Trump says he wants peace; who should not want peace? In a world of injustice, there have been conflicts—during the Cold War and beyond—almost every single day since the end of World War II. So peace is something to which we aspire. But that peace should not be about appeasement. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London pointed out, it should be about justice. As my noble friend Lord Purvis pointed out, the aggressors should not also be the victors.

It is essential that the United Kingdom—with our NATO partners, to the extent possible—stands with Ukraine. We must keep trying to persuade our friend in the White House, who is still our ally, that it is vital that we support Ukraine now but negotiations with Vladimir Putin are not the way forward.

I have heard the calls from the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky, Lord Farmer and Lord Campbell-Savours. We need to think about what message we are sending to Russia—if there is any sense that we will negotiate a peace that changes the boundaries of Ukraine. Ukraine is a sovereign country; it has chosen a western-facing route, whether or not it will be a NATO member and whether or not the United States tries to impose a veto on that. It is a sovereign state that has been invaded not once—not just in February 2022—but twice. Russia still has Crimea, but it also has 20% of Georgia. Very few people talk about the 2008 invasion of Georgia, but the boundaries of that country seem not to have been sovereign. The West did not do enough then and the danger is that we are not doing enough now.

The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, pointed out that Poland and the Baltic states are looking at changing some of the international treaties to which they are signatories. There is an existential fear among some of our NATO partners and allies. We need to stand strong for Ukraine in order that each one of our NATO partners remains safe and secure as well. This cannot be a matter of negotiation.

Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the committee for producing an excellent report that has contributed to this being such a stimulating debate. Clearly, there are other, slightly more recent factors that have contributed to it being even more timely and interesting than it might have been, and I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, that it would have been preferable if the debate could have been held in the main Chamber.

We are just over three years after the start of the current operations in eastern Ukraine. I put it like that because today we have really talked only about the situation since February 2022, yet the situation in Crimea since 2014, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, and the situation in Georgia in 2008 remind us that Russian expansionism is not new.

Although the title of the report, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call, is very telling, it is also important for us to remember that for too long, this country, like our NATO allies, tended to turn something of a blind eye. We do not talk about the fact that 20% of Georgian territory is still occupied by Russia. We do not talk very much about Crimea because we seem vaguely to have assumed that it is now just Russian, so we talk about Ukraine of the borders of February 2022, but until two weeks ago, we had at least assumed that we were on the same page as our transatlantic allies.

We are on the same page as Canada. Indeed, Donald Trump and JD Vance have done the most extraordinary thing: they have united Canada and have persuaded the Québécois that they are Canadian after all. Donald Trump appears to be doing something that his friends in the Reform Party probably would not like, which is reuniting Europe, not in terms of European institutions—I am not going to get into any technicalities about the UK-EU security relationship in terms of a bilateral relationship that is signed and sealed as a treaty—so much as the very clear fact that European states need to work together.

There has been a wake-up call, which we began to see at the time that this report was written, but it has become ever greater. At the same time, President Putin has managed to catalyse NATO by ensuring that Finland and Sweden have finally decided that they should be NATO members rather than outside it, so there are a lot of unintended consequences. As noble Lords have pointed out, this report was completed six months ago. By House of Lords standards, debating it within six months is quite quick. The fact that the Government have already responded is excellent but, obviously, nobody could quite have predicted what has happened in the six weeks since President Trump was inaugurated for the second time.

We are in a very different situation where our American allies perhaps cannot be relied on as in the past. As my noble friend Lady Harris pointed out in her trenchant and powerful speech, the US vice-president’s comments were, quite frankly, unacceptable. To suggest that the United Kingdom is “some random country” that maybe fought some war 30 or 40 years ago is absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible. The transatlantic relationship might not be a special relationship in US eyes in the way that it has sometimes been in British rhetoric. As the former UK ambassador to the US, Dame Karen Pierce, pointed out yesterday to the International Relations and Defence Committee, the Americans do not see it in a sentimental way, and they never have. As several noble Lords have pointed out, it is quite reasonable that the United States, particularly, but not only, under Donald Trump, in many ways sees the transatlantic relationship through a transactional lens.

One wake-up call we need to understand is that whoever is the American President, we cannot simply assume that NATO will go back to the alliance it was during the Cold War. We need to be aware of that but, equally, we need to be able to trust our allies. We cannot have the vice-president of one of our allies rubbishing the United Kingdom or denigrating the President of Ukraine. It is utterly unacceptable.

I absolutely agree with the many noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who pointed out that the Prime Minister has been very effective over the past few week in working with both the US and our European partners. However, we also need to make sure that we are not only standing up with Ukraine against Putin but standing firm against the United States when it is not acting as a reliable partner.

Various issues arise from that. It will surprise noble Lords that I agreed with a couple of points made by the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Skidelsky. On the question of our relationship with the United States, at a meeting yesterday, it was pointed out to me that we should not just assume that we go back to old-fashioned business as usual. However, the UK’s relations with the United States are qualitatively different from those of our European partners: we are part of the Five Eyes, we have various defence capabilities that our European partners do not, and we clearly have the nuclear deterrent. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, the French nuclear deterrent is independent, but ours is closely tied to the United States. Is the Minister able to confirm that we can use our deterrent independently? It is clearly important because our deterrent is the NATO nuclear deterrent and France’s is not. That is my first question.

Various noble Lords have mentioned the incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has talked about the UK and France sharing their nuclear deterrent. To what extent are we able to do that beyond saying that NATO offers a nuclear umbrella? There are questions about the non-proliferation treaty, which is not frequently talked about anymore, but there may be issues there, so it would be interesting if the Minister could comment.

Defence expenditure is one of the issues that has been partially overtaken by events in the past two weeks. We now have a timetable to get to 2.5% and several noble Lords talked about moving to 3%. That is my party’s policy, and we believe we should do it quickly, but not on the back of development. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a valid point that we might say that we need to increase defence and there might be various niche capabilities that the noble Lord, Lord West, would want if he were in the Room, but we need to be clear about what we would be spending that 3% on.

Defence procurement is clearly one of the issues. The questions raised about our defence industrial base are hugely important. My noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield was one of the Peers who mentioned that we need to strengthen our defence industrial base and to work with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those that have found that the uncertainty pending the SDR has created issues with their balance sheets and cash flow. Will the Minister tell the Committee what work is being done with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those that have dual-use capabilities? Equally, we need to be working with our European partners. As several noble Lords mentioned, interoperability is vital. Defence spending of 3% may or may not be enough. We need to make sure that we have the right capabilities, in the right place, at the right time, not just as the United Kingdom but with our NATO partners and allies.

My final question is on the size of the Armed Forces. For years, these Benches have been saying that we need to restore the 10,000 cut to the Army. We also strongly believe that we need to strengthen the reserves, but the other important point that was raised is about total defence or civilian defence.

Taking the lessons of our Finnish and Swedish partners is important. What are His Majesty’s Government doing not only to think about civilian capabilities but to talk to the United Kingdom? At the moment, we are, to an extent, talking to ourselves. We will have people watching online. There will be people from the Armed Forces or veterans listening in. There might be people from the Russian embassy or the American embassy listening in; maybe even the Chinese embassy has an interest. What we really need, however, is to be saying things that reach out to the ordinary citizens—in particular, not people of our generation, because most of us will be over the average age of the UK population. The noble Baroness, Lady Fall, pointed out that she lives with some Gen Z people. We need to be reaching out to them, to schools, to universities and to our young people to explain why defence and security matter.

This is not just about the past; it is about the present. It is about the defence of democracy and standing up not just for Ukraine but for what it stands for. We are doing it for Europe and for a future that is for Gen Z, their children and grandchildren.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a long and interesting debate. This is the only contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I crave your Lordships’ indulgence if I appear to go back to the start of the debate to express these Benches’ support for, thanks to and tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As a country, we owe the Armed Forces a considerable debt of gratitude; that is something that we do not say sufficiently often, including to the public. It is very important that this debate is happening now, in the context of the geopolitical challenges that we face on a daily basis.

The Bill may play a small part in thinking about the welfare of and recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, is right that we need to be very clear that we should not put too much emphasis on one Bill to rectify many of the issues associated with the Armed Forces, but this manifesto commitment from the Government is a welcome one and the Liberal Democrats, in the other place and here, welcome the Bill and wish it well. We inevitably have some questions and will raise some issues this evening and table some amendments in Committee.

The Bill is obviously intended to promote the welfare of service personnel and their family members, which is very welcome. That is important, and clearly goes beyond the scope of the current ombudsman, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, talked about. How much further does it go from the existing role? In theory, it would appear to be helpful by going beyond service complaints to a wider remit for service personnel and their families to bring cases. However, like other noble Lords, I will press the Minister on how the Government envisage defining a family, because it can be understood in a variety of ways. In particular, there are questions about kinship carers and the families of deceased members. Here, there is a slight gap in the legislation as it is currently proposed. The Minister was very clear that it is about current service personnel, but if somebody has been killed in action, would their relevant family members be able to have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner under the envisaged proposals or would there be a separate arrangement for them? It would be helpful to understand that a little bit more.

Like other noble Lords, I will raise the question of commissioner’s independence, but also the independence of the appointments process. How do His Majesty’s Government envisage engaging in the recruitment of the commissioner? Will it be an open call? I assume they are not going to recruit Capita to engage in the recruitment of the commissioner, but how else might they do it? Was the noble Lord, Lord Russell, thinking, since the German commissioner is a former MP, that perhaps a former Member of your Lordships’ House might be able to put themselves forward to be a commissioner, if the hereditary Peers Bill passes unamended?

It would be helpful to understand this. The legislation says that the commissioner will not be a civil servant or current service personnel, but it does not say that it cannot be a retired civil servant or former service personnel. The Minister is nodding. If the commissioner is a retired general, say, what provisions can be put in place to ensure that serving personnel would not feel inhibited about bringing cases? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, talked about having provisions for whistleblowing. If the independent commissioner had a services background they would inevitably have connections to the services. In many ways that would be very useful as they would understand the cases that are brought to them, but a very junior member of the Armed Forces might feel inhibited about bringing a case. It is important to understand how independent the commissioner will be.

That also relates to the commissioner’s budget. The figure of £4.5 million to £5 million has been talked about. How fixed is that figure? How great is the commissioner’s scope to put forward proposals to say, “This isn’t going to enough for the role that I have been asked to undertake”?

There is also a question of scope. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, talked about two very different types of cases: the very broad issue of accommodation—I will come back to that in a moment—and the very specific case of the RAF fatalities. Would something like that be within the commissioner’s scope, or would they not be able to look at it because, presumably, there would be formal inquiry? It would be useful to know how far there will be clear lines of demarcation between legal investigations and what the commissioner might do.

Finally, on Armed Forces accommodation, if we are concerned about the welfare of our Armed Forces and retention, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, retention is about families. Having brought the homes back into public ownership, will His Majesty’s Government invest in ensuring that the homes and their maintenance are fit for purpose, so that one key aspect of welfare will not take up the majority of the commissioner’s time? It is surely important that the Government make it clear that they are going to deal with the accommodation issue. While we are about it, might the Government think about committing to the decent homes standard for Armed Forces accommodation? If it is right for renters in civilian life, we should surely demand at least as much for our Armed Forces personnel and their families.

Finally, is there any scope for looking at frivolous and vexatious cases? Clearly, we want the commissioner to be able to look at important, relevant cases, but just occasionally, cases might be put forward that are frivolous and vexatious. Will there be some screening process to make sure that the commissioner is able to focus on meaningful cases and not get caught up with anything that might be unnecessarily bureaucratic?

We wish this Bill well. We will perhaps bring forward a few amendments in Committee, but we look forward to the Minister’s response.

UK Defence: Hypersonic Missiles

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend knows that this Government, like the previous Government, fully support the nuclear deterrent as an important way of deterring our adversaries at the most serious and strategic level. We are currently developing the successor programme to upgrade and renew that nuclear capability. This Government and previous Governments have consistently said that the nuclear deterrent is right at the heart of our defence posture and will remain so.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned the need for relying on other allies, perhaps not just the United States. In his initial Answer, the Minister referred to AUKUS. When His Majesty’s Government took office last year, they very quickly reaffirmed their support for AUKUS. Does the Minister believe that the United States is equally committed? If not, what should we be doing?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do believe that the United States—let us say again, we have a special relationship with the United States—is a really important ally for this country, if not the most important. We should state that now and we should state that as we go forward. In terms of AUKUS, we remain totally confident with respect to both pillar 1 and pillar 2, along with Australia. Australia, the UK and the US will develop AUKUS and that too, in terms of hypersonic capability in pillar 2, remains an important part of the work we are doing to defend our country and our freedoms, and democracy across the world.

Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument, which makes, as he said, a small change to the existing system. However, the fact that this statutory instrument comes before your Lordships’ Committee today provokes me to rise with a single question for the Minister: does not the fact that this small change is being brought here today mean that the Government are prepared to look at bigger changes in future and are looking at the entire system of military justice?

I ask that specific question because, earlier today, I was at an event with the Child Rights International Network, the Centre for Military Justice and Salute Her UK. The Child Rights International Network was expressing great concern about events at the Army Foundation College and the level of offences, particularly sexual offences, there. More broadly, there was a sense at the meeting that the service complaints and justice systems in the military are broken; that units are marking their own homework; and that there are serious problems with the investigation of rape and sexual assault cases, as well as with the experiences of black and racially minoritised personnel.

I have no objection to the statutory instrument before us but, at that meeting, something was said that I found very disturbing. A representative of female personnel serving in the military and veterans said that they felt as though they had gone back to 2015 in terms of the attitude of military justice, particularly towards female victims of potential abuses in the military. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are prepared to, and will, look much more broadly at the whole system?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, when we get to questions of military justice, I normally rely on my good friend, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, to speak on these matters because he is far more expert than me. So, I am grateful that the Minister gave us the background to this case. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that we accept this amendment as it stands, clearly, but I have a couple of questions, one of which is quite close to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Is there a danger that officers of a certain rank will feel unable to act as robustly as they might otherwise do if the officer at the court martial is senior to them?

There is a real question around whether service justice is doing what it needs to do. Clearly, the person facing the court martial needs to be treated fairly, but the Armed Forces still have questions to answer. If we look back to the Atherton report in the previous Parliament, when Sarah Atherton serving personnel and former personnel to come and give evidence—very much with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—we see that that was important. If courts martial are being populated by serving personnel, will people feel that they can really act as judge and jury in the way they need to be able to do?

I have another related question. It is noted, in the Explanatory Notes, that part of the issue is a lack of senior officers. As His Majesty’s Armed Forces shrink—the size of the Army, in particular, has shrunk—will the problem get worse rather than better? Do we need to think about how to reform military justice, in a wider sense, to ensure that the best practices are in place?